The ejector seats that fire through the floor
bbc.com
bbc.com
> Luxury British watchmakers Bremont are the founders of an interesting tradition. Alongside fellow Brits, aerospace company Martin-Baker, whose construction and supply of ejector seats dominate 70% of the global market, they co-design a signature special edition variant of Bremont’s MBII watch.
> Given their rich affinity with the aviation industry from day dot, Bremont’s aim was to over-engineer one of their timepieces in collaboration with Martin-Baker to withstand the incomprehensible forces felt by the human body when ejecting from an aircraft. These watches, known as MBI, would then be numerically engraved and awarded to any of Martin-Baker’s success stories.
Few watches would have the need to endure extreme temperature changes from -40 to 40 degrees Celsius, or rapid altitude pressures up to 100,000 feet, let alone atomic-level shock testing and prolonged salt water exposure. Bremont Founder Nick English says of the rationale behind the watch, “with the testing and development behind us, both Martin-Baker and Bremont felt that for those pilots who have successfully ejected from a fighter aircraft (it really is a special and elite club), a bespoke and equally special watch would commemorate this well.”
[site] https://bremont.com/products/mbi
[article] https://www.bosshunting.com.au/style/watches/bremont-ejectio...*
#) It's almost an incentive to ditch.
[1] https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-behind-a-famous-ph...
Whatever floats their goat but there is nothing incomprehensible about the forces experienced during an ejection.
The accelerations are rougly on the order of ~10G. Roughly the same as a car crash. Not something you want to experience, but far from incomprehensible.
A 6-foot fall is nothing to laugh at by the way. I think it might be similar in terms of G-force, just momentarily while an ejection seat will have a longer boost duration.
"Standby for Ejection!": https://youtu.be/5QF2F51adjA
Cockpit: http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/CW_tour/CW-22.html
For traditionally-shaped planes (delta wings work differently) there's a fairly straightforward tradeoff between big wings to increase lift at low speeds and small wings to reduce drag at high speed. Flaps help but there's a limit to how much you can change the shape of a wing in flight. So if you build a plane to go very fast, you tend to end up with a plane that has a high minimum speed as well, which makes take off and especially landing difficult.
To simplify, are you basically saying that with more unstable wing configurations, at slower speeds the plane simply wants to fall out of the sky rather than glide? Is that sensible to imagine for this topic?
A car has good stability in turns: it wants to go straight, if there's a bump or you jerk the wheel a bit it still goes straight. If you apply a control input and get a turn, it will let you maintain the turn but it also wants to unwind and go straight. This is stability but not aerodynamic stability.
The reason one might want a less-stable aircraft is that stability is the opposite of manoeuverability. Super-stable aircraft like training gliders really resist turning and can feel too much like hard work.
As another commenter mentioned the wings don't contribute much to stability. The two big fins at the back (the stabilizers) are the main source.
(disclaimer: I fly fixed-wing acft and gliders, barely, and am no physicist.)
My dad said flying a jet out of Denver was always a challenge because the jet would just lumber along refusing to develop power. (Denver is at high altitude.) He'd always start the takeoff roll with the tail hanging over the edge of the runway start.
Truth be told, the Starfighter was an interceptor, designed to carry air-to-air missiles fast towards approaching Soviet strategic bombers. That's it, nothing else. The German Airforce wanted a multi-role fighter, some creative Lockheed marketing assured the the Starfighter was bought in the F-104G variant. At that G-variant turned it into a brick to fly, stall speeds close to minimum take off speeds among other things.
The starfighter's safety record with other operators was a lot better.
It was bribery and corruption - not marketing.
The CSU, thank God, hasn't been ruling alone since 2018 and it is highly unlikely that they will ever be able to do so again. They will be in government for a long time though, mostly because the SPD in Bavaria is an ongoing clusterfuck and won't rise high enough to form a red-green coalition.
> The Munich airport is named after him, and AFAIK the current state prime minister still has a bust of him on his desk.
It's even worse. When normal young people had posters of semi-naked stars and starlets, Söder's bed was adorned by a FJS poster [1].
[1] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/markus-soeder-spo...
You don't get driven from town so for calling him out anymore. That moved to villages a while ago, otherwise I would have had some serious issues back at school.
I'd prefer the FDP to take up that role like they do in federal government. While I in no way like or support the populist bullshit that the FDP pulls (e.g. their questionable appeasement towards COVID deniers), they're at least somewhat grounded in democracy. The FW are dangerous because of their structure - grab up enough support locally to run under their banner and you can talk whatever shit you want, including cuddling up with the far right [1].
[1] https://www.endstation-rechts.de/news/freie-wahler-sachsen-z...
Which gave it the nickname ”The Lawn Dart”, I believe.
In Holland it also had a very bad name due to Lockheed's bribery of the royal family, which shouldn't even have had any influence on such matters anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_Gee_Bee_Model_R_Supe...
The P-38 is cool, too :-)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T-38_Talon_over_Edwa...
- still used for US fast jet training, apparently.
Believing we could be peaceful but we choose not to be is far worse.
If humans were a hive mind where cooperation was assured, you'd still need destructive capabilities against the environment, and perhaps other species.
That humans strive for the capacity of violence doesn't surprise or sadden me. What does sadden me is that much of our pinacle of technological development happens with the explicit goal of violent capacity. And the fact that rough parity in our violent capacity is generally the only thing keeping big states from expansion.
There is no more point being saddened by it, then there is being saddened by Bears having teeth.
A toothless bear is no better off being so, because those teeth are useful and necessary for it to be a bear and/or equivalent in it’s ecosystem. It’s a part of it’s success and it’s future. It is a part of what makes it a bear.
A bear that felt bad about having teeth though? That is one unfortunate bear.
A bear that tries to tear out it’s teeth? That is a bear that longs to not exist as a bear anymore (or at all), and the most unfortunate being of all.
If a bear happens to wish for a world where it's teeth weren't necessary, that is nice! But that doesn't much help that bear stay fed, survive the next winter, or reproduce.
To the immediate parent posters comment regarding being saddened by the extreme focus (and spend) on destructive capability globally among us humans - it is sad, if one cares to dwell on it. I see out ability to do it as a sign of our luxurious position - not having to worry about if we will be fed or starve to death, if we will survive the next winter, or our being able to reproduce.
Mostly due to that extreme obsession, the resulting tens of millions of (recent) dead bodies, and hundreds of millions more that did not end up dead because of them.
Maybe I'm in a bit of an existential mood today, eh?
He gives a nice high-level overview of the company's product line, what sort of features were introduced with new seats and why.
"Attack helicopters are flying so low that by the time you make the decision to eject and move to take action, you're probably dead anyway, so why add the weight, complexity, vulnerability, cost of an escape system that's almost never likely to be used."
That's what the article is saying: if you're in an unrecoverable situation, there is no time or space to eject either.
This isn’t true. If you start shooting people it’s perfidy and you become a combatant again and they can shoot you.
That’s still perfidy!
> The game designers
What game are you talking about? I mean the real laws of war.
There’s no ‘cooldown’ - if you’re perfidious then you’re a combatant.
Do you have a definition? From my understanding surrendering for the purpose of keeping yourself alive is fine. If the enemy exposes themselves because of it you can not attack them. Perfidy is about attacking the enemy when they believe you are unable to attack because you for example surrendered. It bans offensive uses of surrendering, but not defensive usages.
>What game are you talking about?
The game of war of which countries have agreed upon a ruleset to play.
For example, retreating soldiers are absolutely still combatants but on the other hand sailors on a life raft are not. Is an ejected pilot like a retreating infantryman or like a sailor on a liferaft? The solution the drafters came up with is that he's a non-combatant while descending but once again becomes a combatant once landed.
He got the inspiration of inverting the aircraft so gravity helped him clear the aircraft's boom.
There were IIRC plans to fix it, but they didn't want a hiccup in production due to implementing the fix, so it was never fixed.
The first Manchester prototype flew just five weeks before WW2 started, and might have been rushed into production.
But there were major flaws with the reliability and power of the engines, and Avro were already working on the Lancaster to replace the Manchester before the first production models even entered service.
The Lancaster is simply a Manchester, with the two Rolls-Royce Vulture engines replaced by four Merlin engines.
Might be a bit more difficult in reality with the plane on fire and missing control surfaces, though.